[Page: H845] GPO's PDF
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak about judicial activism, a grave and growing problem in our current national discourse that is threatening our democratic principles, eroding the consent of the governed, and radically altering the social fabric of our American society.

It should be of little surprise that the impetus of this debate, and the modest solutions I intend to set forth, stem from the November ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to allow same-sex marriages and the subsequent rulings on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act that have followed.

I am a strong supporter of numerous legislative measures currently being considered by this Congress, aiming to define marriage as an exclusive union between one man and one woman. However, I believe a more comprehensive solution is necessary to address the broader, troubling trend toward judicial activism, a development with definitive implications beyond just the issue of marriage.

America's judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans, many of whom I represent in the Second District of Kentucky. The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate. I believe these actions usurp the will of the governed, circumvent representative government by allowing tribunals of a select few, not elected or otherwise politically responsible, to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping the societal traditions of our great Nation.

Clearly, this issue is one about power, not in the raw political sense but in terms of the allocation of government authority between each branch of government, specifically between Congress and the Judiciary, in a federal system that relies on checks and balances to protect our liberty. This is a debate that has been taking place since our founding.

At no point is the tension between Congress and the courts greater than in the realm of constitutional interpretation. The Constitution does not expressly provide for judicial review. Instead, the right of judicial review is a practice with origins from the bench

[Page: H846] GPO's PDF
itself, established in 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall ruled, ``It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Branch to say what the law is.''
The Marbury v. Madison case decision provides an extraordinary recognition of judicial power in a constitutional form of government. The exercise of such broad authority, expanded over time through political tradition, clearly has a growing adverse effect on the relationship between coequal arms of our national government. As judicial power expands, congressional power contracts. This is especially true when the power to interpret the Constitution rests in the hands of activist judges anxious to find the latest ``right'' hiding between the lines of our founding document.

Our Founding Fathers created three separate branches of government, each with equal checks and balances on the other. Our founders also ensured that each branch, including Congress, play a role in constitutional interpretation, requiring officials in each branch to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

The framers did not give authority to one branch over the other. Certainly each branch has its separate functions, but debating, defending, and upholding the tenets of the Constitution involve the decision and duties of each branch. As a Congress, we must change our thinking and reaffirm our authority to interpret constitutional issues in concert with, and independent from, the courts.

The framers of the Constitution were advocates of serious debate who believed that the deliberation of the political process should always be open to the people. If the courts continue their dramatic move toward self-proclaimed interpretive power, I believe Congress, as the people's branch of representative government, should take steps to ensure equal balance and authority to check the final results.

[Time: 13:30]
I am introducing legislation today to address these serious, pressing issues in a direct and forceful manner. The bill that I have authored, if enacted, will allow Congress, by a two-thirds majority of each House, to reverse a judgment of the Supreme Court. This additional check may only be enforced on rulings concerning the constitutionality of an act of Congress following the enactment of this bill.

In his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln warned, ``The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.''

It is my hope that the people and the courts will see my position and recognize the serious problems arising from this growing imbalance of constitutional authority. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to redress judicial activism, protect the equal dignity of this governing body, and preserve the majority will of the governed by supporting this legislation.

What nonsense. Congress frequently reverses Supreme Court decisions. The only decisions they cannot touch are ones based on Constitutional law. And even then, they can reverse Supreme Court decisions by amending the Constitution.

"Judicial activism" isn't a problem; Republicans have invented it out of the thin air, because their bigotry is getting recognized.

BTW, pay attention to these "activist judges" and who they were appointed by. A study has shown that most of them were appointed by Republicans. "Oops."

The irony, of course, is that that proposed bill, if it ever became law, would most likely be declared unconstitutional. Congress *cannot* suddenly usurp power given to the judiciary without a constitutional amendment.

The GOP has some gall to try and undermine the American republic in the name of politics. The party should be tried for treason.

I have to just say I think this is ridiculous. The pledge of allegiance has been this way for how many hundreds of years???? And because one guy gets a wild hair up his ass, now they want to change it. Stupid, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Sicy I have to just say I think this is ridiculous. The pledge of allegiance has been this way for how many hundreds of years???? And because one guy gets a wild hair up his ass, now they want to change it. Stupid, in my opinion.

Well, let me strip out any opinions, and I'll give you the history:

It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister, described as a "Christian socialist." In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex. (Source)

The original Pledge of Allegiance is as follows:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and (to) the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

The "to" in parentheses was added in October 1892.

On June 14, 1923, "my Flag" was changed to "the flag of the United States," so as to prevent the possibility of foreigners pledging allegiance to their native flag.

Thus, the pledge became:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

In 1924, “of America” was added.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

The last change in the Pledge of Allegiance occurred on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved adding the words "under God". As he authorized this change he said: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

This was the last change made to the Pledge of Allegiance. The 23 words what had been initially penned for a Columbus Day celebration now comprised a Thirty-one profession of loyalty and devotion to not only a flag, but to a way of life....the American ideal. Those words now read:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

Part of the problem, I guess, is that Dr. Newdow is correct: "under God" was added for the sole purpose of being religious. Now the question before the court is whether public schools should be forced to recite it, as currently formed.

If you don't believe in God, then it's totally meaningless like somebody already said.

take God outta the pledge, then youre going to end up taking in God we trust off of money, might as well just stop all Christmas time ads that feature Santa Clause and Christmas that appear on TV, because it may offend some people.

Strip the country of religion bare, and you have a very boring country.

The Christmas ads are run by private organizations, which businesses are a part of. Whether or not it offends someone, it doesn't matter.

The government, on the other hand, theoretically has a duty to be neutral for all of its constituents. God should have no place in government at all, as none of us, Christian, non-Christian, atheist, etc. can agree as to what God is or whether God exists at all.

I went to a Catholic school as well. Most people, frankly, only say the Pledge of Allegiance grudgingly and half-hearted anyway, and I don't think I've said it once since I've left high school; when does it ever come up otherwise?

Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...

Posts: 19,402

Local Time: 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar This is the same type of logic used in the past when parents tried to get teaching of evolution banned because it "harmed" them. It's ridiculous, we're moving closer and closer to a day where parents are going to want a custom made cirriculum for each and every student. No wonder our education system seems to be slipping. Growing up I heard a lot of things that I didn't follow or don't belive in. Not every single thing your child hears or is taught is going to become their belief or a part of their life. Parents need to start doing their jobs and they won't have to fear everything that child is exposed to.

I was exposed to drugs, atheist, sex, "the wrong" music, foul language and everything else you can think of and turned out great...well maybe not great but I never did drugs, jailed, lost my morals or anything like that.

. Exactly.

Also, pax, no, it's not illegal, but I do remember hearing a few instances in which kids were kicked out of class or whatever because they personally had refused to stand during the pledge. They didn't force anybody else to stay seated, they just personally chose not to stand...and still got kicked out.

I do agree with you, also, though, in regards to the whole thing of wondering why exactly it's so important to say the pledge every day anyway-most kids nowadays just say it monotone, they don't really inject much feeling into it, so...

All this makes me realize that I haven't said the pledge since elementary school-none of my classes in middle and high school ever stood and recited it.